Treblaine said:
Was it a coup or an invasion? Surely one or the other, and "invasion" and "consent" must be a conflict in terms.
It was a bit of both, an invasion by William and a coup (well, more of a revolution, truth be told) by his supporters in England. Consent and invasion are not a contradiction in terms, and invasion, in military terms, is the incursion of a foreign army for conquest or plunder. William incurred with a foriegn army, leading a conquest of England that led to his being crowned King. It was, therefore, an invasion. While William did not use force against the British people, he did use the threat of force against the then King James which led to his being ousted and William ascending to a throne he would otherwise not have inherited.
Treblaine said:
Well since you're a lawyer, show us where in our "codified constitution" that parliament cannot appoint a king?
We don't have a constitution, parliament does what it deems and has done since Cromwell.
Parliament cannot pass legislation without the Queen's assent, heck can't even form governments without her consent (although that is a technicality). Admittedly this is an area of constitutional law that I'm not sure anyone could answer properly. Parliament, however does not do what it deems. While no parliament can bind its successors, there are such things as constitutional conventions and constitutional statutes. At present, without the express repeal of these, they cannot be contravened (just because they aren't entrenched doesn't mean they aren't binding until repeal). I am fairly certain there must be one of these somewhere within the bowels of our constitution that means that parliament cannot simply stop one person being monarch and crown another. Even Charles I was king right up until the moment they cut his head off, and he committed treason, and even when Charles II came back it was because he was invited not because he was appointed. It probably has something to do with succession laws, e.g. no roman catholic can be a monarch, sons inherit before daughters etc. I would look, but I can't be bothered as I have actual exams I'm meant to be revising for.
And we most definitely do have a constitution, don't mistake being uncodified for being non-existent.
Treblaine said:
The event was not called an invasion and has not been called an invasion till very recently by who might be called revisionists. It's always been known as "The Glorious REVOLUTION".
And the Hundred Years War lasted 116 years, what we call stuff doesn't affect what it really was. People at the time would be willing to call it anything to make it sound grand and glorious, I mean, Glorious Revolution sounds a lot better than the Dutch Invasion. In any case, I am in no way saying that by most normal standards it was an invasion, but the fact remains that a foreign force seized control of the country and overthrew the King. Just because a large section of the country wanted it and little to no resistance was offered doesn't mean it wasn't an invasion.
I'll concede that 1066 was the last "proper" invasion, but William's part in the Glorious Revolution easily falls within the definition of an invasion.
